In response to his back page article in the last issue of Guns and Ammo ,Mr Metcalf is no longer employed by that publication .

From Jim Bequette, editor, “Guns & Ammo” Magazine:

As editor of “Guns & Ammo,” I owe each and every reader a personal apology.

No excuses, no backtracking.

Dick Metcalf’s “Backstop” column in the December issue has aroused unprecedented controversy. Readers are hopping mad about it, and some are questioning “Guns & Ammo”’s commitment to the Second Amendment. I understand why.

Let me be clear: Our commitment to the Second Amendment is unwavering. It has been so since the beginning. Historically, our tradition in supporting the Second Amendment has been unflinching. No strings attached. It is no accident that when others in the gun culture counseled compromise in the past, hard-core thinkers such as Harlon Carter, Don Kates and Neal Knox found a place and a voice in these pages. When large firearms advocacy groups were going soft in the 1970s, they were prodded in the right direction, away from the pages of “Guns & Ammo.”

In publishing Metcalf’s column, I was untrue to that tradition, and for that I apologize. His views do not represent mine — nor, most important, “Guns & Ammo”’s. It is very clear to me that they don’t reflect the views of our readership either.

Dick Metcalf has had a long and distinguished career as a gunwriter, but his association with “Guns & Ammo” has officially ended.

I once again offer my personal apology. I understand what our valued readers want. I understand what you believe in when it comes to gun rights, and I believe the same thing.

I made a mistake by publishing the column. I thought it would generate a healthy exchange of ideas on gun rights. I miscalculated, pure and simple. I was wrong, and I ask your forgiveness.

Plans were already in place for a new editor to take the reins of “Guns & Ammo” on January 1. However, these recent events have convinced me that I should advance that schedule immediately.

Your new “Guns & Ammo” editor will be Eric R. Poole, who has so effectively been running our special interest publications, such as “Book of the AR-15” and “TRIGGER.” You will be hearing much more about this talented editor soon.

“Guns & Ammo” will never fail to vigorously lead the struggle for our Second Amendment rights, and with vigorous young editorial leadership such as Eric’s, it will be done even better in the future.

This week, Dick Metcalf has been fired by his longtime employer and cursed, threatened and damned by many of his former readers for something he wrote. And he's had no opportunity to respond. To me, that's unfair, especially among people supposedly on the same side. Some of you are already hot under the collar and will blast me for writing this. For the record -I disagree -totally- with what he suggested, but believe Metcalf deserves the opportunity to respond. I extended the offer early this week. He chose to wait. Today, Dick Metcalf responds. He will also be a guest on Tom Gresham's Gun Talk Radio this Sunday, November 10.

--Jim Shepherd

When the present controversy erupted a week ago, I was asked by Guns & Ammo/InterMedia management to write the following "clarification and elaboration" on the December Backstop column for use on the G&A website. I did so, but the decision was made to wait and see how the situation developed. I was also asked to hold off on making any comments in any other forum, and no other response appeared in any G&A/IMO forum at all. Then, after Paul Erhardt's column appeared in the Shooting Wire yesterday (http://www.shootingwire.com/features/228219), IMO was contacted by two major firearms industry manufacturers, stating that they would do no further business with IMO if it continued with its present personnel structure. Within hours, Jim Bequette resigned as Editor of Guns & Ammo, and my relationship with all IMO publications and TV shows was terminated.

How do I feel about that? Disappointed. If a respected editor can be forced to resign and a controversial writer's voice be shut down by a one-sided social-media and internet outcry, virtually overnight, simply because they dared to open a discussion or ask questions about a politically sensitive issue . . . then I fear for the future of our industry, and for our Cause. Do not 2nd Amendment adherents also believe in Freedom of Speech? Do Americans now fear open and honest discussion of different opinions about important Constitutional issues? Do voices from cyberspace now control how and why business decisions are made?

From its inception as "Cooper's Corner" in 1986 the back page column in Guns & Ammo has been intentionally designed to address controversial issues, and to invite reader response. By that standard, the December edition certainly succeeded--some might say, too well. But our intention was to provoke a debate, not to incite a riot (which is illegal under laws regulating the 1st Amendment).

In today's political climate within the community of firearms owners, even to open a discussion about whether 2nd Amendment rights can be regulated at all, is to be immediately and aggressively branded as anti-gun and anti-American by outspoken hard-corps pro-gunners who believe the answer is an absolute "NO!" And yes, I am fully aware of the many and varied historical/legal definitions of the term "well-regulated," and how they are used and misused.

I am also fully aware that the different rights enumerated in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and following amendments are different, and are regulated differently. But they are all regulated in some form or fashion, hopefully appropriate to their particular provisions. I further clearly understand that owning or driving a vehicle is not a constitutional right, and that keeping and bearing arms is. But both involve issues of public safety, which is why both are of great and immediate interest to a great number of Americans for much the same reasons. Should we not speak of both in the same sentence?

Let me make myself clear (again): I believe without question that all U.S. citizens have an absolute Constitutional right to acquire, keep, and bear arms.

At the same time, how can anyone deny that the 2nd Amendment is already regulated by innumerable federal, state, and local statutes, and always has been? Even the Supreme Court's widely applauded Heller and McDonald decisions affirming an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals' Moore ruling overturning the Illinois ban on concealed carry, specifically held that other firearms laws and regulations do pass constitutional muster.

Do we all agree with every part of those rulings? Of course not. I personally do not. But these are laws; now part of the organic fabric of the Constitution, and we ignore them at our peril. Should we now hold that those rulings themselves are unconstitutional?

All 50 states now have individual statutes or constitutional provisions regulating concealed firearms carry. The vast majority require state-issued permits, and most require some type of training to qualify. Are all those laws unconstitutional infringements of the 2nd Amendment? Should we entirely oppose their existence? Should we obtain concealed-carry licenses anyway? Are we violating the Constitution ourselves if we do? On these issues reasonable gun-owners may reasonably differ (although you wouldn't know it from what erupted on the Guns & Ammo website, G&A Facebook pages, and many other firearms forums following the appearance of the December Backstop column).

Myself, I would rather carry legally, than carry illegally and risk prison. Given the fact an Illinois concealed carry law now does exist, I have no problem spending 16 hours of my life under its training requirement. And I will. I am glad Illinois finally passed a concealed carry law. Do I believe training is a good thing? Of course I do. Do I believe the onerous fees and procedures imposed by Illinois' anti-gun legislators to reduce the number of applicants are an "infringement?" Of course I do. I'm applying for a license anyway. But that's just me.

Difficult as it may be for some to believe, To those who have expressed their vigorous opposition to the content of the December column (and to my continued existence on this planet), I would pose these questions:

1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?

2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?

Yes, while we don't need to be going on any witch hunts. His response is a bunch of political fence-riding B.S. which shows he has horses arse in his blood. No, he does not need to respond, the flaky old coot needs to just go away. Hopefully help the forgetting this sad soul ever existed saving us from looking and hearing from him forever more.Not friend of the second amendment.

There was this guy that once said, "while I may not agree with what you say, I will defend with my life your right to say it.". What was that guy's name? Oh yeah, it was Thomas Jefferson. Now what else was it that he did, hmmm..............?

Now I don't know what Dick wrote, I don't subscribe to Buns and Whammo, but I can only imagine what it was. I remember before the assault weapons ban of 1994 with all the discussions that were going on back then, a lot of ideas were being put out to try and save our semi-autos. Now some of these ideas seemed reasonable, but were rejected by the hardcore (so to speak). I even remember getting into a discussion with THEE Neal Knox, where we were on the opposite sides. He made his point and I made mine, and we walked off to ponder what was said, but not once did it ever turn ugly.

I don't think we help our selves when we refuse to tolerate an opinion different from our own, especially when it is from within our own ranks. Debating the idea is more productive than destroying the person with the idea. It kind of goes with the rest of those Amendments we Love so much (or should).

A democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. A republic is a well armed sheep disputing the results.--Benjamin Franklin

There was this guy that once said, "while I may not agree with what you say, I will defend with my life your right to say it.". What was that guy's name? Oh yeah, it was Thomas Jefferson. Now what else was it that he did, hmmm..............?

Now I don't know what Dick wrote, I don't subscribe to Buns and Whammo, but I can only imagine what it was. I remember before the assault weapons ban of 1994 with all the discussions that were going on back then, a lot of ideas were being put out to try and save our semi-autos. Now some of these ideas seemed reasonable, but were rejected by the hardcore (so to speak). I even remember getting into a discussion with THEE Neal Knox, where we were on the opposite sides. He made his point and I made mine, and we walked off to ponder what was said, but not once did it ever turn ugly.

I don't think we help our selves when we refuse to tolerate an opinion different from our own, especially when it is from within our own ranks. Debating the idea is more productive than destroying the person with the idea. It kind of goes with the rest of those Amendments we Love so much (or should).

What he said is just like a Washington politician would say; gibberish. In Texas they call it all hat no cattle or something along them lines. Him resting on self perceived laurels seems to be the case. It happens to silly old fools(jim zumbo) that are so full of themselves from time to time.

I'll never understand why guys like this working in the firearms industry will willingly elect to sh** in their own nest.

Dick Metcalf is a horse's ass, in addition to being an idiot. He has to know what happened to Jim Zumbo and Dan Cooper. I read his comments, and they were stupid and ill-informed. His reply above says he doesn't understand the reason for the furor over what he wrote. People got upset because his reasoning, in addition to giving fodder to our enemies, was based on a seriously flawed premise. His explanation for the origin of the first clause of the 2nd Amendment was not only incorrect historically, but also per the rules of English grammar. The rules of simple English sentence structure dictates that the "well-regulated militia" clause is not a condition upon which the main clause is valid; it's an explanation for why the main clause was created in the first place.

Dick, you sound just like the Dixie Chicks. Yes, you have a 1st Amendment right to speak your mind and voice any opinion you wish. But, actions have consequences, and we (the consumers who pony up the dollars to buy the rag that pays your salary) have every right to make our views known via our pocketbooks. It's called the free market. When you piss off your audience who supports you and buys stuff from your employer's advertisers, you have to suffer the consequences of doing so.

Guns and Ammo sucks anyway, and has for quite some time.

Ted

Money can't buy happiness... but it's much more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than on a bicycle.

Maybe he is running for some sort of office. His response sounds as if written by a RINO a lot of hedging. So much so John Mccain would be proud. These guys being in the industry for the length they have and all the sudden, they have they're come to jesus moment on "reasonable gun control/rights? Anyone believe they ever understood the 2nd from the start? just whistling Dixie.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum